Against the ‘Statue Anatomized’: The ‘Art’ of Eighteenth‐Century Anatomy on Trial

Abstract

The study of early modern anatomy calls for a critical visual history that examines the connection between epistemology and image-making practices. Focusing on anatomical images produced over the long eighteenth century, this essay argues that such a history must begin by examining those historical instances in which conventions of anatomical representation are rigorously challenges. Such breaches in anatomy's pictorial culture provide insight into evolving relationship between picturing and knowledge. Shifts in perspective and representational conventions do not merely reflect changes in scientific thought. Rather, they act as catalysts for re-conceptualizing the interaction between looking, investigating and representing. This is true of the new approach to anatomical engraving represented in published works by Govard Bidloo, William Hunter and John Bell. Emphasizing the graphic details of the anatomy theatre over the idealized, normative image associated with Andreas Vesalius, these books helped construct the very idea of scientific representation.